Recurring concern

Inadequate road warning signage

First to latest report 2 Dec 2013 — 1 Jun 2026

Reports that mention this concern
84
Times this concern has been raised
100
Stated actions linked to this concern
118

What this concern includes

Includes deficiencies in warning, hazard, navigation or speed-limit signage specifically intended to protect road users on roads, bends, bridges, junctions, roundabouts or comparable road approaches, including failures of prominence, placement, direction or provision.

What is not included
  • Excludes non-road warnings, including railway, product, food-allergen, clinical and social-care policy communications.
  • Excludes road markings, street lighting, vegetation maintenance, speed-limit setting and physical road layout unless the assertion specifically concerns dedicated road warning signage.
  • Excludes general road safety deficiencies or collision hazards that do not identify inadequate warning signage.

Reports and published responses 84 reports

See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response

  1. Gloucestershire

    AI-generated summary

    Ray Ronald Westlake and Barry Malcolm Clow · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    On 9 December 2018, Barry Malcolm Clow lost control of his car on the A424 near Upper Rissington and collided with another vehicle; Ray Ronald Westlake, a passenger in the other vehicle, and Mr Clow died at the scene from their injuries. The concern was that standing and running water regularly overwhelmed roadside drainage on this stretch of road, with no warning signs for the potential for flooding, putting future motorists' lives at risk.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide flood-warning signs for motorists

    Wider context from the report

    “The evidence that I heard was that it had been raining on that day and there were large areas of standing water and running water throughout this stretch of the A424. I am told that there are features in the side of the road (grips) which are dug out to encourage the water to run away but these are regularly overwhelmed. The evidence from other motorists and local residents is that this is a significant problem for motorists, especially those who do not know this stretch of road. Whilst it may not be possible to ensure that the water runs away I was surprised as was the Police Collision Investigator that there were no signs warning motorists for the potential for this area to flood. I am concerned that if this situation continues, future lives will be put at risk in the same way. ”

    Source location

    Ray Ronald Westlake and Barry Malcolm Clow · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Erect flood warning signs at the A424 site.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Notwithstanding that the sad circumstances leading to the deaths of Mr Clow and Mr Westlake appears to have arisen following the presence of surface water on the highway following a period of very heavy rainfall, the Council elected to exercise a statutory power to erect flood warning signs at the site on the 29th July 2019 in response to the information provided to us in your Regulation 28 Report.”

    Source location

    2019-0170-Response-from-Gloucestershire-Highways_Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 2 August 2019

    Open published response

  2. Central and South East Kent

    AI-generated summary

    Christopher Thomas INNES · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Christopher Innes died on 25 May 2018 after being struck by a van while crossing the A28 Ashford Road in Chartham, having alighted from a bus. The concerns included the unmarked bus stop, the lack of a footway or nearby pedestrian crossing on a 50 mph road, and vegetation restricting the space available for pedestrians. There was also no clear responsibility for managing the vegetation or land adjoining the bus stop.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of signage or warning identifying the designated bus stop to approaching vehicles

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The presence and position of the unmarked bus stop on the carriageway, where Mr Innes alighted from the bus may be considered a hazard. The bus stop is known locally but is absent any signage or warning to approaching vehicles. The evidence revealed at the Inquest was that this may have led to him being in a position of vulnerability at the side of the carriageway, where there is no footway available for use but only a small grass verge. In order to reach a footway to progress in either direction of the A28 at this point, Mr Innes was required to cross the carriageway to which a 50mph speed limit applies and which has no pedestrian crossing facility in the vicinity. (2) Although it is lawful for buses to stop at this location and the stop is recognised as a “hail and ride stop”, there is not at present signage indicating that this is a designated bus stop, and this is of concern given that the carriageway has a 50mph speed limit. (3) The vegetation close to the area where buses stop includes substantial trees and hedgerows alongside the carriageway and the close proximity of this to the carriageway causes restriction for any pedestrian alighting from the bus to negotiate an appropriate place to stand on a busy rural road prior to attempting to cross a 50mph road. Although the Highways Department at Kent County Council have completed work in respect of cutting back vegetation as part of a site review on the 31st October 2018, there is no clear responsibility for the management of the cutting away of the vegetation and no clear indication of ownership of the land close to the bus stop as the Highway Authority did not concede any responsibility for the land adjoining the hard carriageway. ”

    Source location

    Christopher Thomas INNES · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Install pedestrian-crossing warning signs in both directions near Nickle Cottages and additional signs for the Mansfield Farm junction.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “19. In order to increase the conspicuousness of pedestrians crossing the road after alighting a bus in this area on the A28, and in the absence of a formal stop or crossing point, it is proposed that a diagram 544.1 is installed in advance of the Nickel Cottage area in both directions. There are no appropriate supplementary plates which can be installed with this sign.”

    Source location

    2019-0124-Response-by-Kent-County-Council
    Page 4 · response
    Published 14 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    KCC does not accept that absent signage contributed to the death; pedestrian warning signs may nevertheless provide some betterment.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “20. KCC does not concede that the absence of signage was in any way a contributing factor in the death of Mr Innes, however it does consider that the installation of warning signs to warn of pedestrians in road ahead may provide some betterment for users of the bus service at this location.”

    Source location

    2019-0124-Response-by-Kent-County-Council
    Page 5 · response
    Published 14 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    No specific traffic sign is available under the regulations to warn drivers specifically about a bus stop ahead.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “16. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD 2016) does not prescribe any highway sign which warns of the presence of a bus stop. The only signs which can warn of other hazards is diagram 562 below. There are 15 supplementary plates which can accompany this sign to advise drivers of the specific hazard. None of these supplementary plates relate to the presence of a bus stop. Without the provision of a supplementary plate, drivers will not be able to understand what they need to prepare for ahead and this warning will be less effective.”

    Source location

    2019-0124-Response-by-Kent-County-Council
    Page 4 · response
    Published 14 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    A bus-stop road marking would not address the concern because it marks only a fixed stop and does not provide advance warning.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “21. Bus stops can be marked using the diagram 1025.1 TSRGD 2016. This marking is used on fixed bus stops in urban areas predominantly to prevent parking within the bus stop location. This marking is not used in rural areas and would not be considered to provide an advance warning of the presence of a bus stop as it is marked at the exact location of the stop. For that reason KCC does not consider that such a marking would address the concerns outlined in the PFD report.”

    Source location

    2019-0124-Response-by-Kent-County-Council
    Page 5 · response
    Published 14 June 2019

    Open published response

  3. Warwickshire

    AI-generated summary

    Laila Habibi and Danial Ghafuri · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Laila Habibi and her two-year-old son, Danial Ghafuri, were passengers in a car diverted from the M1 motorway when it entered the wrong carriageway on the A426 Lutterworth Road and collided with an oncoming HGV; both died at the scene on 17 February 2018. The concerns included previous road traffic incidents and fatalities on the road, its use as a regular M1 diversion route carrying large volumes of traffic, and the absence of an illuminated single-carriageway warning sign.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Absence of an illuminated single-carriageway warning sign

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) an absence of an illuminated ‘single carriageway’ warning sign ”

    Source location

    Laila Habibi and Danial Ghafuri · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

  4. Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire

    AI-generated summary

    Herbert John Bernard Francis · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Herbert John Bernard Francis was driving towards the A40 when he failed to stop at the junction and collided with an articulated heavy goods vehicle, dying at the scene from injuries sustained in the collision. The concerns identified related to road safety measures, including improved markings and warning signs, changes to filter lanes, and consideration of lower or advisory speed limits.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient speed control or warning at the upcoming bend and junction

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) That consideration should be given to lowering the speed limit along this stretch of road, or by placing advisory speed limit signs at the location to warn motorists of the upcoming bend and junction. ”

    Source location

    Herbert John Bernard Francis · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of road markings and early warning signs on the approach to the main A40 from Redstone Road

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The approach to the main A40 from Redstone Road could be further enhanced with the introduction of road markings and early warning signs. That consideration should be given to the re-positioning of the national speed limit signs from their current location to closer to the mouth of the junction. ”

    Source location

    Herbert John Bernard Francis · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Conduct a three-year speed-limit review, prioritising the report’s concerns and recommendations for consideration in the first tranche of sites.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “My officials are currently in the process of carrying out a three year speed limit review looking at road safety issues at over 600 sites on all trunk roads in Wales. I have asked my officials to consider the concerns and recommendations raised in the report are considered as a priority as part of the review and addressed within the first tranche of sites reviewed during this financial year.”

    Source location

    2018-0242-Response-by-Welsh-Government
    Page 1 · response
    Published 23 September 2018

    Open published response

  5. Lincolnshire

    AI-generated summary

    Harry James Jellicoe · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Harry James Jellicoe was driving on the A151 in wet conditions when he lost control of his car, which left the carriageway and struck a tree. He suffered severe injuries and died in hospital some days later. The principal concerns included the road’s restricted visibility through a bridge, the absence of a specific speed restriction or priority signage, and the potential hazard posed to unfamiliar drivers; the vehicle also had extensively worn front tyres associated with longstanding misalignment.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of priority signage where high sided vehicles use the full carriageway

    Wider context from the report

    “(V)      Although traffic approaching from the West has a clear view of the bridge for some considerable distance, the nature of the landscape is such that it is not possible to see any significant distance beyond the bridge arch to identify traffic, especially high sided vehicles which may be occupying the centre of the carriageway, approaching from the East. (VI)      Similarly, and for the same reasons, traffic approaching from the East has a much reduced view of the approach to the bridge and cannot identify traffic approaching from the West. (VII)      In light of the current signage and proper recommendation that high sided vehicles utilise the centre of the carriageway, given the restricted line of vision through the bridge arch, you may feel that the current speed limit is too high and requires revision. Likewise, there is no signage indicating priority of passage where high sided vehicles are required to utilise the full carriageway. (VIII)      I received evidence that there have been very few reported collisions involving HGV’s at this location, there was a clear consensus among the local drivers who gave evidence that this location posed a significant potential hazard, for the reasons given above, particularly for those motorists who were not familiar with the area. ”

    Source location

    Harry James Jellicoe · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  6. Nottinghamshire

    AI-generated summary

    Molly Jean Mills · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Molly Jean Mills, known as Jean, was involved in a collision with a lorry while turning right on the A6006 near Stanford on Soar on 6 June 2017. She died in hospital on 17 July 2017 after contracting bronchopneumonia associated with rib fractures sustained in the collision. The report identified concerns that the junction layout, incline, obstructed visibility, unclear manoeuvring arrangements and inadequate warnings increased the risk of future collisions and deaths.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of junction warning signs to identify the Home Farm junction

    Wider context from the report

    “1. There is a significant incline on this road (in the direction the lorry was travelling). This makes the visibility issues referred to below much more significant. 2. If there are vehicles in the central carriageway waiting to turn right into both the DNRC and Home Farm, as here, there is a risk of them having an inadequate view of oncoming traffic on the A6006, before making their turning manoeuvres. 3. This is the case in both directions, but particularly for vehicles travelling in the direction towards Rempstone, because of the incline of the road. 4. The evidence of the lorry driver was that he did not see Jean’s car until she turned in front of his vehicle. 5. The evidence of the Forensic Collision Investigation Unit officer was that Jean’s view would have been largely or completely blocked by vehicles waiting to turn right into DNRC until 2.93 seconds before impact. 6. Witness evidence suggested that the right turn into DNRC is often backed up, resulting in queues in this central lane, making visibility worse. It was suggested this may be partly because of a security barrier in the DNRC grounds, which causes traffic to back up. This is likely to remain a busy junction when the DNRC opens. 7. If the oncoming vehicle (coming up the incline towards Rempstone) was a standard vehicle, rather than a lorry, visibility would be even worse, given that the cab of a lorry is higher up. 8. Similarly, if the vehicles waiting to turn right (into Home Farm and DNRC) were lorries or other large vehicles, such as ambulances, then visibility concerns would be heightened further. 9. There is an element of uncertainty at the junction – where both vehicles are turning right – there is no clear indication of who has right of way or how the vehicles should make their manoeuvres. 10. There is a solid double white line on the road just before the turning into Home Farm. This requires a driver turning right to make a sharp-angled turn. 11. The signs on either side of the junction warn oncoming traffic of the DNRC junction, but not the Home Farm junction. The fact that the Home Farm road is a private road should not reduce the need for adequate safety warnings to drivers. 12. I have been provided with a Nottinghamshire County Council Road Safety Audit regarding this junction, which is dated 21.9.15. This contains the following extract : During the site visit we were approached by a member of the public (apparently the owner) from Home Farm, opposite the Stanford Hall Access. He brought to our attention an issue which he felt had safety implications. Drivers intending to turn right into the Home Farm access have to wait on their side of the A6006 centre line to give way to oncoming traffic, as previously. They then have to turn across both the right turn lane and the Eastbound A6006 traffic lane. If a number of vehicles were occupying the right turn lane, he felt there would be potential to mask oncoming A6006 vehicles from view. Although the existing situation requires a right turner to wait in the westbound lane of the A6006, he also felt that he would be at greater risk of shunt type accidents than previously. 13. Sadly, this appears to have been the very risk that played a part in this collision. ”

    Source location

    Molly Jean Mills · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  7. Dorset

    AI-generated summary

    Aaron George Nordass-Lacey · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Aaron George Nordass-Lacey died on 13 October 2016 after falling from his bicycle on the A35 Barrack Road, Christchurch, and being struck by a motor vehicle. The principal concerns relate to the safety of pedestrians and cyclists on Barrack Road, including road-crossing behaviour, vehicle speeds, barriers, and unclear cycle-lane signage.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inadequate signage directing cyclists where the cycle lane ends

    Wider context from the report

    “1. During the inquest evidence was heard that: i. The road where the incident occurred that lead to Aaron’s death, the A35 Barrack Road, Christchurch, Dorset is a road which has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Evidence was given that people regularly drive at excessive speeds on this road. The location of the incident is near to a school and evidence was given that people, especially school children, do not always use the designated crossing just prior to the junction of Clarendon Road and Barrack Road. Evidence was given that school children often flood out of the school and run into the road. Evidence was given that this was perceived to be a danger and that there could be the death of a person in the future. ii. The placement of barriers along this section of road would assist in reducing the access to the road and encouraging pedestrians to use the crossing to cross the road safely, reducing the potential dangers and risk to life. It was also suggested that a fixed speed camera may assist in regulating the speed of vehicles that use the road. iii. Evidence was also given in relation to the cycle lane along Barrack Road. The cycle lane along Barrack Road heading towards Christchurch is on the footpath and is a shared cycle lane and footpath. The cycle lane comes to an end just before the junction of Clarendon Road and evidence was given by the Collision Reduction Team Manager that the expectation is that when the cycle lane comes to an end, cyclists will cross the road and use the cycle path on the footpath on the other side of the road. Although there is a sign at the end of the cycle lane it is not clear that the expectation is for the cyclist to cross over the road at the crossing. The lack of signage is therefore very confusing and could lead to a further collision. 2. I have concerns with regard to the following: i. The safety of pedestrians and cyclists who use Barrack Road, Christchurch where the incident that led to Aaron’s death occurred. I would therefore request that there is a review of the safety measures in place and consideration is given to the erection of barriers along the pavement and also along the central reservation to discourage pedestrians and cyclists from crossing the road in a dangerous manner. ii. I would also request that a review is undertaken regarding the signage given to cyclists at this location and consideration be given to having a fixed speed camera at this location. ”

    Source location

    Aaron George Nordass-Lacey · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Remove the segregated footway/cycleway sign and relocate the end-of-cycle-route sign closer to the toucan crossing.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “2.9 Paragraph 7.9 – Risk of collision between cyclist and pedestrians – Barrack Road toucan crossing”

    Source location

    2018-0028-Response-by-Dorset-Council
    Page 4 · response
    Published 8 June 2018

    Open published response

  8. Milton Keynes

    AI-generated summary

    Ayse Yalcinkaya · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Ayse Yalcinkaya, aged 35, was the sole occupant of a stationary car at Junction 14 of the M1 when a lorry collided with it, and she died from multiple injuries. Concerns included unclear signage and uncertainty about lane use on the slip road, as well as whether a run-off lane should be provided before the junction.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide clear lane-use signage on the slip road at Junction 14

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) I was told by the Police Collision Investigator that the traffic had started queuing on the slip road at Junction 14 into lane one. It was suggested that there was some uncertainty by drivers using the slipway as to which lane they should use and that the signage is not clear. ”

    Source location

    Ayse Yalcinkaya · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Commission and obtain an investigation of traffic flow, signage and queueing at M1 Junction 14.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “a. On 7 December 2018 Highways England commissioned our Asset Support Contractor, Kier, to undertake an investigation report addressing the ‘Matters of Concern’ raised by the Coroner.”

    Source location

    2017-0422-Response-by-Highways-Englands
    Page 1 · response
    Published 27 February 2018

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review the investigation findings to determine appropriate further works addressing the identified concerns.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Highways England received the “Fatal Collision 25 7 15, Investigation Report” from Kier on 15 January 2018. The report included observations of traffic flow, signage, and queueing at M1 Junctions 14 made on a site inspection from Kier Services Highways Division on Tuesday 9 January 2018 between 06:45hrs and 09:30hrs. These findings are being reviewed by the Highways England Asset Development Team to determine what action may be appropriate for further work in 2018/19. This review is to be completed by 31 March 2018.”

    Source location

    2017-0422-Response-by-Highways-Englands
    Page 1 · response
    Published 27 February 2018

    Open published response

  9. Newcastle upon Tyne

    AI-generated summary

    Graeme Stafford Flatman · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Graeme Stafford Flatman, an experienced pedal cyclist, suffered fatal injuries when he collided with a Nissan Qashqai while riding on the A593 at Oxen Fell, Skelwith, Ambleside. The concerns identified were the absence of warning signs about the severe gradient and limited visibility, and whether the 60-mile-per-hour speed limit was appropriate for the road.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Absence of appropriate signage warning of visibility limitations on the road ahead

    Wider context from the report

    “The A593 is a scenic cross country road with a speed limit of 60 miles per hour. No signage is present within the area in which the collision occurred, warning road users of the severity of the road gradient or the limitations upon visibility. Coroners concerns are: 1. The absence of appropriate signage to warn road users approaching severe incline/decline on the road ahead 2. The absence of appropriate signage warning of visibility limitations on the road ahead 3. The appropriateness of a 60 mile per hour speed limit on a single carriageway road, with one lane in each direction containing numerous straight sections, bends and gradient changes ”

    Source location

    Graeme Stafford Flatman · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Absence of appropriate signage warning of severe incline or decline on the road ahead

    Wider context from the report

    “The A593 is a scenic cross country road with a speed limit of 60 miles per hour. No signage is present within the area in which the collision occurred, warning road users of the severity of the road gradient or the limitations upon visibility. Coroners concerns are: 1. The absence of appropriate signage to warn road users approaching severe incline/decline on the road ahead 2. The absence of appropriate signage warning of visibility limitations on the road ahead 3. The appropriateness of a 60 mile per hour speed limit on a single carriageway road, with one lane in each direction containing numerous straight sections, bends and gradient changes ”

    Source location

    Graeme Stafford Flatman · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Visit the collision site and review signage, involving police if possible.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As a result of the Regulation 28 report we will visit the site, with the police if possible, and review the signage at the collision location. It is hoped to organise this site meeting early in the New Year and install any measures before the end of March.”

    Source location

    Response from Cumbria County Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 15 February 2018

    Open published response

  10. Exeter and Greater Devon

    AI-generated summary

    Margaret Olive PINE (Mrs Pine) · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Margaret Olive Pine was the front-seat passenger in a car returning from an evening out when, in poor visibility, the driver took a wrong turn and the car collided with a wall closing off a road. The inquest concluded that Mrs Pine died from injuries received in the road traffic collision. The substantive concern was that there were no signs indicating the road was a dead end and no reflective warning on the wall.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of warning signage for the no-through road and road closure

    Wider context from the report

    “To avoid the potential for a similar incident in the future I would ask Devon Highways to consider the erection of signs at the start of the aforementioned road advising drivers that this was a no through road and at the end of the road which is closed off with a wall, affixing to that wall some form of reflective signage warning drivers they have reached the end of the road. ”

    Source location

    Margaret Olive PINE (Mrs Pine) · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Install a reflective bollard in front of the wall at Site 1.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In section 5 of the Report you asked for two particular actions to be considered. I have attached a sketch which was issued to our contractor ordering works to be carried out in the suggested locations. Also attached are the two photographs from their works system showing completion.”

    Source location

    Response from Devon County Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 2 October 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Install an additional No Through Road sign on the first lighting column after the Site 2 roundabout.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In section 5 of the Report you asked for two particular actions to be considered. I have attached a sketch which was issued to our contractor ordering works to be carried out in the suggested locations. Also attached are the two photographs from their works system showing completion.”

    Source location

    Response from Devon County Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 2 October 2017

    Open published response

Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.

Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026